wb_check_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior: it explicitly states the tool does NOT reveal secret values and only reports which variables are set. It also specifies the exact return JSON structure. This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps an agent understand safety and output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences plus a return-format spec. It front-loads the purpose, then states a key behavioral constraint, and finally gives the exact output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, read-only, parameterless check tool, the description is complete. It explains what it does, what it returns, and a critical safety behavior. With an output schema present and no params, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and no compensation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether the required credentials are present in the environment'), and explicitly clarifies it does not reveal secrets. This clearly distinguishes it from other wb_* tools that perform actions or retrieve data. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is a pre-flight check for environment credentials but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., wb_set_key, wb_add_cabinet). It does not mention exclusion conditions or recommend it before other operations. The intended use case is inferable but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.